A scenario for the second civil war

Forward Observer ^ | August 30, 2016 | Matt Bracken

[drypowder]

Many of us could have pinned this same scenario, I appreciate that someone did. It’s pretty obvious that it will take another civil war to reinstate Constitutional law.

[Gaffer]

Show me an example of a document signed by Lincoln that attested that he accepted ‘secession’.

You’re just posting crap.

[Jack Black]

Excellent essay. Strange thing I walked through this *exact* same scenario with a couple friends just a few days before I saw this. Which, to me, says that the scenario is just sitting right in front of us. In fact I would say it is the most likely scenario at this point.

• Hillary is leading in the polls.
• On top of this: There is a lot of suspicion of cheating, so by hook or crook she may win.
• There is zero doubt she will be appointing many super liberal judges.
• There is an obsession with gun control by her controllers, including Soros and Bloomberg.
• Net net: it's coming, as sure as winter.

I think the only question is how hard to they come at us. I notice in California they are taking the steps of putting a tax on each bullet, making people go through background checks to buy ammo.

Oregon and Washington are both under sustained attack on gun rights funded by a group of Jewish high tech billionaires (and Bill Gates). Both states have had horrendous "gun show loophole" laws enacted that make it impossible to even hand a gun down to your son legally.

This same cabal is gearing up to agit-prop-cram a few more gun regs through.

So depending on what state you live in "gunageddon" may happen sooner than even the Hillary election, and may be brought to you by the gullible woman and cucked beta-males of your own state.

That leaves each one of us with "some deciding to do" about what response to have to becoming an "insta-felon" because a cabal has decided to make you one.

Historically war has always been a team sport, and I see no reason this one won't be as well. Got Tribe?

To revive an old-time Freeper saying: "BLOAT". Buy Lots of Ammo Today.

[Pollster1]

BLOAT - buy lots of ammo today. Food for storage too.

But, what should we buy at the very last minute. Ammo is not on that list. (1) We have seen what happened to ammo recently, when prices jumped and many calibers were unavailable at any price. (2) Responsible people who already have the ammo they expect to be able to use should not be buying when our natural but last minute allies are also buying. It’s better for 1,000 more decent Americans in our area to be armed with 50 or so rounds each for the latecomers than for 100 of us to be armed with an extra 5,000 rounds each.

What is on my last-minute list? Lots of each of the following:

- cooking oil (limited shelf life)
- insecticides (limited shelf life)
- clothing with elastic (limited shelf life)
- fuel and stabilizer (limited shelf life)
- extra batteries (limited shelf life)
- spices (limited shelf life)
- canned fruit (limited shelf life)

I have an actual list, although it’s not with me. The theme though is that I should already have everything I would want if the liberals get the ugly changes they hope for - except an increased surplus of items with a limited shelf life. Those items I hope to buy in quantity to share at the first sign that it’s almost time. I don’t imagine a run on any of the above as a first reaction to trouble.

Other ideas for last minute purchases, anyone?

[amorphous]

Please read these two articles one after the other, and understand that it’s very unlikely that there will be a smooth transition of power in January.

You read my thoughts. And another thing, Homeland didn't buy billions of rounds, and DOD isn't spending billions on AMPVs and armored HMMMVs for no reason.

[Charles Martel]

All they have to do is bring in five or ten or fifteen million Mooslims and wait for us to defend ourselves against them, then the US feral government will declare a just war on natural born citizens.

Yep - that plan has worked pretty well in the U.K. thus far.

[The Toll]

Your scenario is certainly in play, in regards to the politics, but there is something else that I feel going on simultaneously. Something far closer to home than anything that could happen in our beloved Capital. Some undercurrent.

These actions you predict are far more plausible when viewed through the pressure being put on Joe Sixpack out there waiting for the light to turn green.

Heroic “revolutionary” action is very unlikely to suddenly arise from a bunch of fat, out of shape, aging, television addicts. Things have to get far worse before men will risk everything for a political cause.

It’s Black Lives Matter, Safe Spaces, Transsexual Urinals, Daughters Chopped up for Alligator Food, White Privilege and the Knock Out Game. These are the things that are sending Joe Sixpack to Cabella’s every weekend.

If and when your local Homicide Detective decides that bodies lying in the ditch simply aren’t worth investigating any longer because of the threats to police officers in certain neighborhoods. Things will speed up quickly. There is a STRONG desire to take out the trash without being locked up by this fraud of a government.

[central_va]

Sorry Matt you always forget about state(s) secession. That is a real possibility.

[amorphous]

No matter what any person or persons do or don’t do, there is a cleansing coming, and it will be Old Testament in scope and nature.

And New Testament:

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.

Give back to her as she has given;
pay her back double for what she has done.
Pour her a double portion from her own cup.

Give her as much torment and grief
as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
‘I sit enthroned as queen.
I am not a widow;
I will never mourn.’

Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your thesis on the true cause of the Civil War intrigues me.

It intrigued me as well. I only discovered it since January of this year when I noticed certain things did not make any sense. That's when I started looking deeper.

Were there no ports in the South that could have been used?

Sure. *IF* the South was independent, they could be used. If the South was not independent, it was economically unfeasible to use them.

Did trade have to go through northern ports?

The way the laws and the power structure of the day were jiggered, virtually all Southern trade was controlled by New York. Much of this jiggering of the law to favor New York/New England shipping interests was created by "The Navigation act of 1817."

It did a whole lot of things to create a defacto monopoly of trade by the New York/New England shipping interests. I'll get into a couple of details.

The most significant thing it did was bar foreign registered or foreign crewed ships from carrying trade between US ports. Only American ships who had a predominantly American crew, were permitted to carry cargo from one US Port to Another US port.

It also set heavy penalties on the usage of foreign ships or American ships with foreign crews to carry cargo into US ports.

The American shipping interests, all headquartered in New England/ New York area, set their prices such that they were slightly less expensive than paying the penalties of using foreign ships or foreign crews.

The South didn't have that many ships of it's own, and seemingly couldn't hire Northern ships outside the control of a sort of guild that acted very much like a Labor Union which didn't tolerate "scabs."

These are but a couple of examples of how through law, certain powerful interests had gained control of the vast bulk of shipping, warehousing, insurance, banking and so forth in the United States.

If the South wanted product shipped to Europe (Southern products accounted for 3/4ths of the value of all products shipped to Europe.) they were compelled to use New York shipping and other companies, with their commensurate 40% skimming of all profits from the sales of the Southern produced products.

Independence would have netted the Southern producers an instant 40% profit for their goods sold abroad, not to mention the loss of Import tariffs, the vast bulk of which (3/4ths) were paid by the value obtained through Southern products shipped to Europe.

In other words, the South was an enormous cash cow for both New York/New England *and* paid for 3/4ths the cost of all Federal government.

Here is a map I post often to illustrate the point.

3/4ths of all the money earned which are represented by those coins, was earned from Southern products being shipped to Europe.

This map is what put me on to what really happened. I had learned from other sources that the vast bulk of all trade value came from Southern products, so why was all the import value ending up in New York? Shouldn't it have been showing up in the South in order to balance the Production/Payment trade equation?

That the map was showing the vast bulk of the money ending up in New York told me immediately something didn't make sense.

[NorthMountain]

So let me repeat, if it does hit the fan, I don't think a vast majority of law/military will be going door to door collecting weapons. They will be on the side of freedom.

I hope you're right.

I think you're wrong. I think they'll obey orders.

[frog in a pot]

Go down fighting is all I can say.
As an example for the others if for no other reason.

Bingo.

In any event, it is only a matter of a few seconds of time on the clock of history between importing a few million anti-Americans and the government suspending the 2A.

Whatever history records, it must regard those who choose to defend the plain meaning of the Constitution as “patriots”.

There are many millions of such patriots, including military officers and their subordinates who swore their oath. It most particularly includes public officials who also took an oath to defend the Constitution.

A second civil war would be painful and costly but at the same time provide each of us the opportunity to directly confront the aggressor and have a say in our future and that of our families. Inevitably, it would be necessary for some to add their name to the long and honored list of those fallen who were willing to demonstrate they were free and brave

[M Kehoe]

Hi guy. Hope you are doing well.

Imho, the conflict will quickly escalate pass the sniper stage to the IED stage.

Not that I know anything about IEDs...

5.56mm

[TalonDJ]

“So let me repeat, if it does hit the fan, I don’t think a vast majority of law/military will be going door to door collecting weapons.” Go hang out by a big army base out east. You will be surprised how many Obama stickers are on cars with military stickers. The political bent of the military is changing and it is changing FAST.

[DiogenesLamp]

Show me an example of a document signed by Lincoln that attested that he accepted ‘secession’.

I showed you one signed by John Adams. In the pantheon of "American gods", Adams beats the dog snot out of Lincoln, who pretty much resembles George III in this matter.

But for that matter, I believe there is a document penned by Lincoln in which he supported secession.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better… Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

In 1848 Lincoln spoke the truth. After he became the Agent of New York Wealthy Interests, he spoke the will of his masters. (The same power blocks to which we are opposed today.)

[sport]

I’m with you on that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Show me an example of a document signed by Lincoln that attested that he accepted ‘secession’.

So I showed you a document signed by Lincoln that attested that he accepted secession.

Somehow I do not think this piece of evidence will compel you to change your position.

[Gaffer]

You’re still trying miserably to resurrect your absurd assertion. Of course secession isn’t precluded by a union that was freely joined, but THAT is not what happened. Lincoln went against all the wishes of the founders, IMO.

But, try as you may, this still doesn’t resolve your refusal to accept a non-historical definition of civil war.

[Gaffer]

You told me about documents signed by people likely dead when Lincoln pursued that war.

[Charles Martel]

it will be much like the Revolutionary War where Tories and Patriots often lived close to each other. Not a pretty scenario at all.

Check out a low-budget, non-Hollywood film titled "All For Liberty" (Amazon, etc.), about the Revolutionary War in South Carolina. It shows the Tory militia as a greater threat than the redcoats - likely an accurate depiction. It's more documentary than drama.